Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.


Learn about the Davidson Academy’s online campus for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S.

The Davidson Institute for Talent Development is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Davidson Fellows Scholarship
  • Davidson Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute
  • DITD FaceBook   DITD Twitter   DITD YouTube
    The Davidson Institute is on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube!

    How gifted-friendly is
    your state?

    Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update

    Who's Online
    0 registered (), 0 Guests and 89 Spiders online.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    HushHush5309, optimisticmum, oop, Paribus, jemond75
    10955 Registered Users
    Su M Tu W Th F Sa
    1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30
    Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
    Topic Options
    #247497 - 08/25/20 09:41 AM Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI)
    Darren Skidmore Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 08/22/20
    Posts: 10
    Hello, I am a 16-year-old who is trying to find answers to my intriguing intellectual profile. As a person who has always been extremely curious about intelligence, especially of gifted individuals, I have desired to know more about my scenario, but this is difficult to do when I have never found a cognitive profile like mine in my foray into studies and journals.

    To preface: I was a difficult child in some aspects, and in others, a stunningly easy one. At the age of four, I was diagnosed with Asperger's due to delays in social communication and sensory issues, but I did not have language issues. Although I did not speak until the age of two, I was apparently reading at at 2 1/2 which is remarkable, even for a gifted toddler. As I grew older, I eventually lost the Asperger label (it became swapped with social anxiety disorder), although I still feel like an Aspie in many ways.

    As a student, my academic achievement has always been extremely high, where I have usually been performing two to three grade levels above par in most subjects. A lot of this is because I can be pretty ambitious and even cutthroat when it comes to school. My latest accomplishment of achievement was receiving a 34 (99th percentile) on the ACT, with a 36 in math. Unfortunately, I live in an area with extremely poor funding for gifted education, and besides being selected for placement in a gifted classroom in sixth grade (they never did the COGAT, merely using my state test results to invite me), I have not been offered anything else supplementary and have had to blaze my own path with my aspirations.

    When I was thirteen, I was administered the WISC-V as part of a neuropsychological evaluation. The results I got were... perplexing. Although my FSIQ was 136, upon looking at the subtests, things became more and more nebulous. A >90th percentile in all Verbal subtests except Similarities, the one most correlated with IQ? An "Extremely High" processing speed in lieu of the trope that insinuates that there is no such thing as a gifted child with high processing speed? A score on Digit Span so high that it becomes a 20 with Extended Norms, yet an average 11 on Picture Span? My psychologist never interpreted these results, especially not my relatively low GAI, and merely gave me the label of "Gifted". I was also given the CAS where I scored a 138 and the KTEA-III where I got a 140 on Academic Fluency.

    WISC-V Results: October 2017

    Name/Subtest            SS  Percentile
    FSIQ                   136  99

    Verbal Comprehension   121  92
       *Similarities        11  63
       *Vocabulary          17  99
        Information         15  95
        Comprehension       14  91

    Visual Spatial         122  93
       *Block Design        13  84
        Visual Puzzles      15  95

    Fluid Reasoning        126  96
       *Matrix Reasoning    14  91
       *Figure Weights      15  95
        Picture Concepts     -  -
        Arithmetic          19  99.9

    Working Memory         127  97
       *Digit Span          19  99.9
        Picture Span        11  63
        LN Sequencing       16  98

    Processing Speed       138  99
       *Coding              17  99
        Symbol Search       16  98
        Cancellation         -  -

    General Ability        126  96
    Nonverbal              130  98
    Quantitative Reasoning 143  99.8
    Cognitive Proficiency  140  99.6

    In third grade, I received the WJ-III, and received the following scores which I deem notable for context:

    WJ-III Cognitive: October 2012 (age 8:5)

    Name                         SS  %      AE
    GIA                         133 99      13:2
    Verbal Ability              123 94      12:2
    Thinking Ability            118 88      12:2
    Cognitive Ability           148 >99.9   17:1

    WJ-III Achievement: October 2012 (age 8:5)

    Name                         SS  %      AE
    Brief Reading               123 94      11:10
    Basic Reading Skills        134 99      17:8
    Reading Comprehension       120 91      11:4

    Broad Math                  158 >99.9   14:7
    Brief Math                  155 >99.9   15:0
    Math Calculation Skills     157 >99.9   13:7
    Math Reasoning              147 >99.9   14:3

    Although it may appear that I am merely "Superior" in Verbal tests, I was administered a test called the CASL in Kindergarten which yielded me a standard score of 141 for language ability. However, I am more inclined to believe the more recent evaluations.

    The thing which I am mainly intrigued about is my GAI being so much lower than my FSIQ, and the extremely poor Similarities score. I specifically remember being unable to describe how light and dark were similar (I thought I remember saying they were both ways to describe if something is visible, but the proctor did not continue after that). Given this information, it would appear from a pragmatic standpoint that I am not a gifted child, a storyline that differs from what I have been told my whole life, and frankly, what I have told myself my whole life. I don't want to sound conceited, but I do not feel like a 96th percentile GAI accurately conveys my achievements. A child at the 96th percentile would probably be the smartest in their elementary school class, nothing more, but I have consistently garnered the attention of my teachers and peers at a level which feels far above the 96th percentile.

    I am wondering if anyone has experience or knowledge of someone in a similar boat as me, or could perhaps be able to take a stab at interpreting my test results in a novel way. Thank you!

    #247503 - 08/28/20 02:51 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    indigo Offline

    Registered: 04/27/13
    Posts: 4530
    Glad you found this forum.
    I have two tips for you, for a happy life:
    Tip #1:
    Because you mentioned that you are 16, DO NOT DELAY, but begin an application for the Davidson Young Scholars (DYS) program T-O-D-A-Y! Your scores look like you may qualify. Apply and find out!
    Tip #2:
    If you did not sign up for this forum under a username or display name which is a pen-name, pseudonym, nickname, or fake name to preserve your anonymity... then please contact the Admin and/or Moderators to change your forum membership, or delete and create a new membership to protect your privacy.
    Again, welcome!

    #247504 - 08/28/20 06:31 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    aeh Offline

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3806

    I do encourage you to see if a parent or guardian can contact DYS on your behalf, but I will note that you only have one score in the qualifying range (WJ-III Broad Math), on a test that typically requires two qualifying scores, so this may or may not be an avenue that results in the preferred outcome.

    As to why you find your overall experience at odds with your apparent score profile: you have some interesting features in your profile, which makes it one of the strength patterns that commonly is more difficult to capture on the kind of cognitive assessments currently available. If we start from your achievement scores, you clearly show exceptional strength in math skills, both at the basic skills level and at the abstract reasoning level. Your verbal achievement scores are good, but not in the same range--more top 1 in 10 than 1 in 1000. Almost all assessments of school-related skills are more heavily weighted for verbal skills than math skills, even when they attempt to measure different, nonverbal dimensions of thinking ability. So although we can see the pattern of strengths in cognitive skill areas associated with math ability, those strengths don't end up pulling the global measures of cognition up by much, with the verbal skills still dominating at the composite level.

    I'll explain area by area:

    Quantitative skills:

    On the cognitive measures (WISC-V and WJ-III COG), you show very strong skills in Quantitative Reasoning, approaching DYS level, especially excelling in procedural skills (Arithmetic, Digit Span). The value of strength in Arithmetic is, I think, self-explanatory. Digit Span reflects exceptional auditory working memory, which, while often considered on its face to be a less abstract skill, turns out to correlate quite highly with math ability. Figure Weights is the other half of the QRI (with Arithmetic), and is a figural reasoning task using symbols to access algebraic reasoning skills. You did not do nearly as well on this, which suggests that you are better able to access your math reasoning skills in known contexts (conventional math problems, such as on Arithmetic and the WJ-III math subtests). You see how the cognitive pattern is borne out in the achievement pattern.

    Verbal skills:

    Your cognitive measures are, again, very consistent with your achievement measures. They fall very consistently in the 120s, with the minor exception of the 130s for reading lists of words. This is above average, of course, but not at the same level as your quantitative thinking skills. As I mentioned above, this is in the top 1 out of 10 range, where you might expect 2 or so students at or above this level in a typical class.

    Proficiency/efficiency skills:

    The strength in this area explains why your FSIQ is higher than your GAI. You consistently perform in the 140s in this area (WISC-V CPI, WJIII Cognitive Efficiency (this cluster is mislabeled on your list of scores as "cognitive ability")), both on cognitive measures and on achievement measures (KTEA-III Academic Fluency, WJ-III ACH one of two subtests contributing to Math Calculation Skills). Although the data indicate that GT learners do not necessarily have cognitive proficiency skills as high as their reasoning skills (hence encouraging the use of the GAI for GT identification), it does not mean that conversely those with high CPIs cannot be gifted. Many are high across the board, and rarely, I've encountered students who were "merely" High Average in reasoning, but Extremely High in cognitive proficiency skills, who probably should not be considered GT. In your case, you also have reasoning strengths, just not with your strongest and most exceptional skill in one of the standard composites. The presence of consistently 120s ability in those standard clusters justifies your overall global GT status.

    Global ability:

    When these ability domains are combined (sometimes with some others, which I will discuss in a moment), you consistently generate global scores in the 130s, which are certainly within the consensus GT range. So, to answer one of your questions, the available data quite clearly is consistent with your identification as a gifted individual.

    However, your profile is diverse, with strengths in some areas that are easily recognized and appreciated by teachers (e.g., proficiency skills, which encompass speed and memory, and mathematics, which is more easily appreciated at the secondary level), and relative weaknesses (less notable strengths, shall we say) in some areas (reading) which typically comprise quite a bit of the school experience. Consider that the distance between your verbal ability and your mathematical ability is comparable to that between a learner of average ability and a learner globally at the 99th %ile (or IQ 130s).

    I should pause here for a moment and clarify also that your Similarities score is not bad. It is in the upper half of the Average range. This cannot possibly be considered extremely poor. It does happen to be your personal weakest score (that and Picture Span), but it is most definitely not bad. I think you just do even better with verbal cognitive tasks for which the rules are better defined, such as knowledge tasks. (I do wish the examiner had administered Picture Concepts, as that is a similar type of reasoning task, but using pictures instead of words. It might have given a better sense of what the pattern might be, with regard to, say, inductive vs deductive reasoning. But no matter.)

    And to another one of your subtest-based questions: picture span is in the same working memory cluster as digit span, but doesn't always use the same pathways for memory. Notice that you did rather well on both auditory memory tasks (DS and the supplementary LNS), but "only" Average on the visual memory task. This might mean simply stronger auditory memory than visual memory, or it might reflect the other commonality those subtests have, which is that DS and LNS are both symbolic, while PS uses images of concrete-familiar items, which many people encode as language. It seems to me that you display a marked absolute strength in symbolic working memory--which aligns well with your demonstrated strengths in mathematics. I think the Average performances in verbal reasoning (Similarities) and in memory for familiar images (also potentially verbal in nature) may reflect something about how you process and retain decontextualized language. Your early history of being classified as ASD fits with some subtle differences in language and communication, even though your diagnostic category has been changed to social anxiety. In any case, communication differences are frequently observed to feed anxiety. (Keeping in mind this is all speculative on my part, since I don't have any direct knowledge of you.)

    So to summarize, the data supports your standing identification as gifted. Your area of strongest giftedness is in mathematics-related thinking skills and achievement, in the 1 in 1000 range. The magnitude of this strength makes your above average verbal abilities look like a relative weakness, even though they are 1 in 10. You happen also to have high speed and memory skills, which easily draws the attention of teachers. And no, this is not contrary to the data on GT learners. On an additional note, I suspect you do much better when you know the rules going into a task (deductive reasoning) than when you have to feel out the rules from the scattered data presented to you (inductive reasoning).

    And, btw, I know another individual who did not speak until age 2, and learned to read within weeks of their second birthday (the two milestones occurring within very close temporal proximity). That person is also profoundly gifted in math (in addition to being globally gifted).

    Edited by aeh (08/29/20 07:35 PM)
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    #247510 - 08/31/20 09:53 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: aeh]
    Darren Skidmore Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 08/22/20
    Posts: 10
    Wow, thank you so much for your response! I was anticipating being given some new insights when I posted here, but I am flattered at the effort you took to explain my scores.

    I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points, especially the part about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I have never actually heard about this until now, but it completely corroborates with my thinking process. I am very pattern-oriented, but I tend to thrive best when I have the basis of a pattern that I can construct rather than no semblance of a pattern at all. If you've heard of MBTI, I suspect this is a Sensor trait rather than an iNtuitive trait (ISTJ vs. INTJ), but I may be wrong.

    Your point that my math scores tend to gravitate around 145, cognitive efficiency around 140, and verbal reasoning around 125 also strikes true to me, even in my own self-perceived perceptions of my percentiles. As you seem to crave interpretations of data, I have a lot more test results that I can share, if you wouldn't mind interpreting them as well.

    Before I get into this, I read your and the previous poster's note about joining DYS. Even if I did have the necessary scores to qualify, I'm not sure if it would be the best for me considering I am right on the cusp of exceeding the age limit (not really a young scholar anymore, haha).

    Also, with regards to my WISC scores, I originally had a report from the psychologist containing the standard scores with the subtests and the ancillary indices. I then requested my psychologist make a copy of the official WISC report, but I was given a simplified one with most information but not the ancillary indices like GAI, QRI, CPI, etc. Do you think it would be in my best interest to request for the more detailed report (that I have seen in case reports) even though I already have the standard scores sans the other information like SEM and whatnot?

    Anyway, here is some more information about the tests I took and some new tests altogether:

    Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability
    Test Date: 2012-10-09
    Report Date: 2012-10-29

    Name/Subcategory                             SS Z-Score     %   1/x     Raw     AE       W  RPI
    -- ROOT --                                  133 +2.20    98.6    72             13:2    512  99
        Verbal Ability                          123 +1.53    94      16             12:2    511  99
            Verbal Comprehension                123 +1.53    94      16             12:2    511  99
        Thinking Ability                        118 +1.20    88       9             12:2    506  97
            Visual-Auditory Learning             92 -0.57    30     - 3.4   22-E     7:5    492  84
            Spatial Relations                   102 +0.17    53       2.2   61-D     9:0    498  91
            Sound Blending                      130 +2.00    97.7    44     25      21:0    522  99
            Concept Formation                   119 +1.27    90      10     30-E    13:5    512  99
        Cognitive Efficiency                    148 +3.20   >99.9  1455             17:1    526 100
            Visual Matching                     135 +2.33    99.0   102     45-2    12:5    512  99
            Numbers Reversed                    139 +2.60    99.5   215     18     >26:0    539 100

    Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
    Test Date: 2012-10-23
    Report Date: 2012-10-29

    Name/Subcategory                        SS Z-Score     %       1/x     Raw     AE       W  RPI
    -- ROOT --                             
        Brief Reading                      123 +1.53     94         16             11:10   515 100
        Basic Reading Skills               134 +2.27     98.8       85             17:8    536 100
        Reading Comprehension              120 +1.33     91         11             11:4    511  99
            Letter-Word Identification     126 +1.73     96         24      61     12:11   527 100
            Passage Comprehension          111 +0.73     77          4.3    31     13:9    503  97
            Word Attack                    138 +2.53     99.4      177      32    >30:0    545 100
            Reading Vocabulary             124 +1.60     95         18       -     12:5    519  99
        Broad Math                         158 +3.87     99.994  18120             14:7    523 100
        Brief Math                         155 +3.67     99.988   8137             15:0    530 100
        Math Calculation Skills            157 +3.80     99.993  13817             13:7    518 100
        Math Reasoning                     147 +3.13     99.91    1157             14:3    528 100
            Calculation                    155 +3.67     99.988   8137      25     13:9    527 100
            Math Fluency                   140 +2.67     99.6      261      92     13:5    509  98
            Applied Problems               140 +2.67     99.6      261      46     16:0    534 100
            Quantitative Concepts          141 +2.73     99.7      319       -     12:11   522 100

    Cognitive Assessment System–Second Edition
    Test Date: 2017-10-16
    Report Date: 2017-10-27

    Name/Subcategory                             SS Z-Score     %   1/x
    -- ROOT --                                  138 +2.53    99.4   177
        Planning                                137 +2.47    99.3   147
        Simultaneous                            134 +2.27    98.8    85
        Attention                               124 +1.60    95      18
        Successive                              117 +1.13    87       8

    Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition
    Test Date: 2017-10-16
    Report Date: 2017-10-27

    Name/Subcategory                             SS Z-Score     %       1/x     Raw     AE      GSV
    -- ROOT --
        ASB Composite                           -- Required subtests not performed --
        Reading Composite                       127 +1.80     96         28     248
            Letter & Word Recognition           124 +1.60     95         18      90    >19:6    580
            Reading Comprehension               124 +1.60     95         18      15     19:6    559
        Math Composite                          126 +1.73     96         24     248
            Math Concepts & Applications        127 +1.80     96         28      81    >19:6    577
            Math Computation                    121 +1.40     92         12      74    >19:6    570
        Written Language Composite              -- Required subtests not performed --
        Sound-Symbol Composite                  118 +1.20     88          9     229
            Phonological Processing             109 +0.60     73          3.6    44    >19:6    515
            Nonsense Word Decoding              120 +1.33     91         11      48    >19:6    550
        Decoding Composite                      123 +1.53     94         16     244
            Letter & Word Recognition           124 +1.60     95         18      90
            Nonsense Word Decoding              120 +1.33     91         11      48    >19:6    550
        Reading Fluency Composite               151 +3.40     99.97    2968     434
            Silent Reading Fluency              124 +1.60     95         18      64    >19:6    531
            Word Recognition Fluency       (!!) 160 +4.00     99.997  31560      68    >19:6    614
            Decoding Fluency                    150 +3.33     99.96    2330      50    >19:6    630
        Reading Understanding Composite         126 +1.73     96         24     248
            Reading Comprehension               124 +1.60     95         18      15     19:6    559
            Reading Vocabulary                  124 +1.60     95         18      44     19:6    565
        Oral Language Composite                 -- Required subtests not performed --
        Oral Fluency Composite                  -- Required subtests not performed --
        Comprehension Composite                 -- Required subtests not performed --
        Expression Composite                    -- Required subtests not performed --
        Orthographic Processing Composite       151 +3.40     99.97    2968     425
            Spelling                            129 +1.93     97         38      65    >19:6    595
            Letter Naming Facility              136 +2.40     99.2      122      90    >19:6      -
            Word Recognition Fluency       (!!) 160 +4.00     99.997  31560      68    >19:6    614
        Academic Fluency Composite              140 +2.67     99.6      261     392
            Writing Fluency                     110 +0.67     75          3.9    41     17:3    543
            Math Fluency                        132 +2.13     98         61      60    >19:6    643
            Decoding Fluency                    150 +3.33     99.96    2330      50    >19:6    630

    Before I continue, a 160 in Word Recognition Fluency?? How in the heck is this possible? Also, why are my math scores in the 120s and not the 140s like the WISC and WJ would suggest?

    July 2020 National ACT
    Test Date: 2020-07-18
    Report Date: 2020-08-11

    Name/Subcategory                         Score  Raw  of   % SS  
    -- ROOT --                                  34  136 144  99 135
        ELA                                     30   74  84  95 125
            Reading                             30  *34 *40  87 117
            English                             35  *70 *75  99 135
            Writing                              9  *36 *48  96 126
        STEM                                    36   71  72 100 140
            Math                                36  *59 *60 100 140
            Science                             35  *38 *40  99 135

    Once again thank you for this detailed and verbose response. I greatly appreciate the insight that you have given me.

    #247511 - 09/01/20 03:14 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    aeh Offline

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3806
    In more-or-less order of your questions:

    1. You do have the ancillary indices for the WISC-V (GAI, NVI, QRI, CPI). That's probably good enough at this point. You don't have any significant resources to access that would require more on those indices, especially since you are at the college-entry stage of your education, and already have very fine ACT scores.

    2. To your fluency scores: all of your fluency scores are on the higher side, even in the context of your own profile. A 160 is certainly within your range, especially for a mostly automatic skill like word calling. Notice also that there is minimal scanning for that, which can expedite performance for an excellent reader. Remember that you also don't have to process meaning to score well on a decoding fluency measure.

    3. Math scores. There are two principal reasons for scores lower than your WISC and WJ appear to predict.

    Firstly, you may have heard of the concept of regression to the mean. Given the inherent measurement error in any test instrument, it is extremely unlikely that a very high score (far off the mean) will be obtained on two different instruments (or even on two different administrations of the same instrument, separated by time). If you look at the prediction algorithms, the 120 is within the range of predicted scores. For example, a typical correlation between the WISC and an achievement test (I don't have my tables in front of me right now, so I can't give you the real numbers, but this is within the ballpark) is about 0.6. So if you use the WISC-V QRI of 143, and take 43 x 0.6 = 26, your predicted math score on the KTEA is 126 -- which is exactly what you scored.

    Secondly, your WJ achievement scores were obtained when you were only 8, at which point your age peers were only expected to have been exposed to the four basic operations up to single-digit multiplication, and the beginnings of division. THis means that, if you had any level of mastery beyond that, it was much easier to score extremely high in mathematics. Your more recent test, in middle school, would have expected a possible range of math instruction that could have encompassed, for example, algebra I for a much wider range of your age peers, so you would have needed skills at least into the geometry/algebra II range to score similarly high.

    3. Your old test results are very consistent with your most recent results, especially given what I noted above regarding regression to the mean. The relatively (not absolutely) weaker successive/sequential processing performance on the CAS reflects the same thinking profile we discussed previously, where having the pattern helps you fill in the details (typically a more simultaneous processing style). One interesting note: your old WJ results suggest some mild vulnerabilities in the neuropsychological processes underlying basic decoding skills (phonological processing, visual-auditory learning). You appear to have found an efficient solution to that, either on your own or with interventions, which is excellent, but it likely explains why you continue to have very mildly weaker reading comprehension and writing fluency skills than other skills. At this point, I don't anticipate any significant impact on your future, with the possible exception of learning a second language with many phonetic exceptions or complex phonographic systems (a deeper orthography). Languages with shallow orthographies should not pose a problem (e.g., Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Finnish).

    I'm glad you find my posts helpful. Feel free to ask other questions.
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    #247524 - 09/03/20 07:13 AM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    indigo Offline

    Registered: 04/27/13
    Posts: 4530
    Even if I did have the necessary scores to qualify, I'm not sure if it would be the best for me considering I am right on the cusp of exceeding the age limit
    Cusp of qualifying scores, cusp of age limit to apply... yet if you qualified & joined, you'd have two years of free DYS services, potential intellectual peers, plus the invitation to join their alumni group when you "age out" at 18.

    Regarding your question on test result reports: yes, I would collect all scores and reports available.

    #247532 - 09/04/20 03:26 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: aeh]
    Darren Skidmore Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 08/22/20
    Posts: 10
    I have two index scores, Digit Span and Arithmetic, at 19. I checked the WISC-V extended norms and found that Digit Span would actually go up to 20 with my raw score!

    My last question is, if I ask my psychologist to regenerate the report, would it appear with an index score of 20 (and thus a higher FSIQ, CPI, and AWMI), or is this not possible considering the test was performed before the extended norms were released? If not, can the raw results be "reentered" as a new test instead?

    Side Note: I checked my official neuropsychological evaluation and the results listed a number I had never seen before: Naming Speed Index at 141.

    (Sorry for not responding faster, my posts are not being approved)

    #247534 - 09/05/20 11:26 AM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    aeh Offline

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3806
    Your posts should show up more quickly now; the first five posts typically are detained longer in moderation.

    The 19s you have would have the potential to impact the FSIQ, CPI, EFI (Expanded Fluid), QRI, and AWMI (Auditory Working Memory). There are insufficient subtests to calculate the EFI, and the other subtest in each of QRI and AWMI is not close enough to 19 to make using the ExNorms likely to be additionally informative. And, as you note, only DS changes at all on the ExNorms, which means only FSIQ, CPI and AWMI could be affected. The latter two indices are not ones that are usually prioritized in analysis of GT profiles, since they both have to do with efficiency skills, rather than reasoning (although there is evidence that strong WMI of any kind is correlated with math ability). And one additional sum-of-scaled-scores point on the FSIQ is not going to change your life.

    And to your side note: the NSI is another timed task, with significant impact from the non-motor contributors to processing speed, and aligns best with your KTEA scores in Reading Fluency and Letter Naming Facility. It measures mostly something called rapid naming, which is one of the three principal neuropsychological underpinnings of learning to read (along with phonemic awareness -- curiously, one of your lowest scores on the 2017 achievement testing (labeled "phonological processing"), at "only" 109 -- and phonological memory/auditory working memory, in which you consistently demonstrate significant strength, also in the upper 130s to 140s). I'm a little surprised it was administered, since you had already demonstrated that you had a substantial store of language, and it would have been easy enough to quickly check for reading fluency prior to giving the NSI. It's usually used for investigating reading challenges in elementary-school students.
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    #247536 - 09/05/20 03:32 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: aeh]
    Darren Skidmore Offline
    Junior Member

    Registered: 08/22/20
    Posts: 10
    I already know that the implications of getting my scores updated would not herald anything else useful for GT identification. I certainly know my place in this world that I’m not 145-level (although I do happen to be closer to DYS than 99.2% of the population). All I am interested in is more data for my own interest.

    Once again, would it be possible for me to acquire an updated report listing “20” for DS and increased ancillary index standard scores, or does the system not allow this for legacy IQ tests, If you don’t know should I just ask my psychologist?

    #247537 - 09/05/20 06:40 PM Re: Confused by my cognitive profile (FSIQ > GAI) [Re: Darren Skidmore]
    aeh Offline

    Registered: 04/26/14
    Posts: 3806
    It's always possible that your psychologist would update your report with the extended scaled score, but honestly unlikely. This has nothing to do with the "legacy" nature of your testing, as extended scores can be calculated as long as your original report included raw scores. It's more that the extended scale score would be reported in isolation. One doesn't commonly compute index scores based on extended scale scores unless multiple contributing scaled scores are 19+.

    But if you really need to know...your FSIQ and CPI increase negligibly, and your AWMI rises very slightly more, remaining in the mid 140s.

    The more interesting quantitative observation is that your AWMI (even standard scoring) is substantially higher than your other working memory task on the WISC (Picture Span-- 11, which could be presented as a standard score of 105). That's over 3 SD difference between AWMI and the remainder of the WMI, possibly a reflection of the visual aspects of the task, which connects to your WJ COG results, where spatial relations (visual spatial task) and visual-auditory learning (rebus task requiring attaching meaning/language to cartoon-like images) were both in this range as well. It appears you had either experienced additional brain maturation in this domain, or developed more effective compensatory strategies, or benefited from less visual memory load on the specific tasks--or most likely some combination of above--by the time you were retested five years later, as your WISC-V VSI rose quite a bit compared to the WJ SR test. Visual memory, however, did not.
    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

    Moderator:  M-Moderator 
    Recent Posts
    What warrants a skip?
    by indigo
    Today at 03:21 PM
    April is Autism Acceptance Month
    by indigo
    Today at 10:17 AM
    Math Test Doesn't Add Up
    by indigo
    Today at 07:10 AM
    cancelling of humanities studies
    by aquinas
    Yesterday at 10:23 AM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo
    Yesterday at 10:11 AM
    Davidson Institute Twitter